Biofuel... still a 'good' idea?

[FlamesAddiction]

Bio-fuel technology is still in its infancy. There will be breakthroughs in the future that will lead to more efficient ways of producing and distributing it.

[Paul Baxter #4]

Biofuel is a good idea, but only if it doesn't come at the expense of food stocks. There are many plant varieties that could be used instead of core food stocks like corn. The problem is that there is a very strong lobby that promotes a specific industry goal over an overall goal or objective. That lobby has made it so one particular food stock is the only source of biofuel in North America. Even though there is more viable stocks like cane sugar, sugar beets, switch grasses and so on, the focus remains on corn. There has been little to no investment in emerging technologies such as algae fuel production, which uses waste products from common industrial power plants, to generate biofuels and biomass. The potential for biofuel is huge, but it has to be executed properly. We should stick at it because we have not even come close to scratching the surface of its potential. Edison didn't perfect the light on the first go round. In fact, the light bulb is still being perfected almost 140 years after Edison registered his patent. No use in throwing in the towel after the first round.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Paul Baxter #4

Biofuel is a good idea, but only if it doesn't come at the expense of food stocks. There are many plant varieties that could be used instead of core food stocks like corn.

Algae has better energy potential than most types "food" plants that are currently being used, it's just that the "food" plants are cheaper to set up at this point. Algae doesn't equire farmland though and will eventually take the place of Corn and other seed and grain oils.

http://gas2.org/2008/03/29/first-alg...-april-1-2008/

http://www.oilgae.com/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...els-energy.php

[photon]

I'd much prefer other things like solar and nuclear be expanded instead of this.. the problem with biofuels is from a carbon point of view it is a zero sum game, and only if everything in the chain is perfect, which it can never be, so no matter what it still is only a temporary solution.

And that's not counting the secondary consequences that people are talking about.. stuff like the dead zone increasing in the Gulf of Mexico because of more and more fertilizer being used. Or increased water usage for irrigation.

Or if you clear currently unused land to grow a biofuel, you're releasing a huge amount of already trapped carbon, do they take that deficit into account when doing their calculations on how "carbon-neutral" the biofuel is? One study said "converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace."

Though stuff like oil from algae is interesting, a biofuel done in a way that doesn't have all the negative impacts...

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is what we get for listening to the hippies.

If anyone tells you they are a 'reformed' hippy, they are full of 'biofuel.'

Degenerate swine....

This is why we listen to Scientists, not hippies.